Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards won by Degrassi/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted 23:50, 23 December 2007.

List of awards won by Degrassi
self-nomination I'm nominating this list because I feel it is of equal quality to other "awards won by" FLs. I've been working on it for some time in my sandbox, and now the list is complete and referenced, see no reason not to see if it can become Featured; of course, all comments to make the list even better are welcome, as are "supports"!

There are a couple of issues I should probably mention, that is that (1) as with Star Trek, the franchise is not itallicised, but the series are. (2) As some of the series are so old, and some award givers' sites don't archive that far back, some references point to a fan site. I only hope this won't be an issue. Some award givers' sites do indicate they will be archiving nominations in the future, when that happens refs will be updated.

I should probably also mention I have nomed Degrassi: The Next Generation for FA status, and while it isn't not allowed I'm aware it's frowned upon, but I feel I can handle both, especially since that nom isn't getting activity. That has now closed. Thanks. -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 02:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - as to handling multiple nominations, so long as it falls under your ability, then it's not a problem. There's nothing preventing you from seeking multiple nominations for featured content at any given time if you can handle all of them. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 02:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * reply to comment - I've noticed some people upset about it so I thought I'd just be upfront about it. And since my other one seems to be being ignored, I reckon I can cope with 2. Thx for clarifying though -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose the initial header level should be 2, not 3. Also, I think there are too many minuscule sections for single wins, often in out-of-the-way awards. Those would probably be better condensed into a common section, as with most other lists. Also, the redundant link from the reference would gain from being trimmed. I'm always keener with references for the table placed at the end of the section's text, I think it looks cleaner than having the reference repeated for each entry. Circeus (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed the header, it was supposed to be 2, but I'm editing with a pda, and some things are not displayed in an easy-to-see fashion.
 * How many awards/nominations from an award giver would be better placed in a common table? Only when there's one, or go as many as two or three? The issue with that then that I can see, is that some of the more obscure awards wouldn't get any descriptive text, and the reader would have no idea what the award is. Would it be nescessary to create new articles, if only stubs, for each award giver?
 * The other thing is what do you mean by "redundant link from the reference"? I understand placing refs at the end of the prose, but then for some sections, it would be like "blah blah blah[1][2][3][4][5]", which I think looks even more of a mess. If the ref link was placed in the table next to the year, would that be okay? It would reduce the repetitiveness of the ref being used 5 or 6 times in the table, but also not have 5 or 6 ref links next to each other in the text.
 * As with my old nominations, your input is valued, so please advise -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 07:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I gotta say, I'm not quite in favor of this. For one thing, I don't think every award needs an explanation of what the award is.  If it's notable, it'll have its own article.  If it's not, do we really want to mention it? Secondly, as much as it pains me to say this, being nominated for a GLAAD award -- and not winning -- probably doesn't need to be on the list.  Third, I think it needs to be clarified that the "Nominations" listed are nominations not won.  After all, in order to win the "Ingenuity Award", Degrassi had to be nominated, right?  Fourth, I'm not sure this is the best format for this list.  My concern is that yearly might be nice? Or in a big table so one could sort by award name, year, or whatever? Fifth, the formatting concerns above by Circeus. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.